- Page 1: UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM
- Page 5 and 6: incarcerated children in the Distri
- Page 7 and 8: Section 3: Writing Exercise Section
- Page 9 and 10: Opinion PERRY, J. 73 So.3d 34 Supre
- Page 11 and 12: activities, or statements that he e
- Page 13 and 14: damaged package and notified federa
- Page 15 and 16: B. “Sniff Test” at a Private Ho
- Page 17 and 18: was standing in front of the door,
- Page 19 and 20: justified on the basis of reasonabl
- Page 21 and 22: The probable cause affidavit listed
- Page 23 and 24: unwavering expectation that there w
- Page 25 and 26: otherwise prompt his dog to alert.
- Page 27 and 28: (quoting State v. Morsman, 394 So.2
- Page 29 and 30: society recognizes as reasonable. A
- Page 31 and 32: obtained through the search is not
- Page 33 and 34: without implicating the Fourth Amen
- Page 35 and 36: [14] The Government contends, howev
- Page 37 and 38: the President and Attorney General
- Page 39 and 40: nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentari
- Page 41 and 42: The other ‘eroding’ case cited
- Page 43 and 44: 11 Jones v. United States, 362 U.S.
- Page 45 and 46: 103 S.Ct. 2317 Supreme Court of the
- Page 47 and 48: accompanying remedy. Here, for exam
- Page 49 and 50: northbound on an interstate frequen
- Page 51 and 52: inapplicable to the decision to iss
- Page 53 and 54:
L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Justice BRENNAN
- Page 55 and 56:
case. As the Court points out, “I
- Page 57 and 58:
forcefully suggest that the exclusi
- Page 59 and 60:
S.Ct., at 3073-3074. (WHITE, J., di
- Page 61 and 62:
law-enforcement officers have recog
- Page 63 and 64:
government enforcement agent.” Id
- Page 65 and 66:
advance an important underlying sub
- Page 67 and 68:
Americans must be that the Court gi
- Page 69 and 70:
3 In Spinelli, police officers obse
- Page 71 and 72:
The only reference to Hereford’s
- Page 73 and 74:
v. United States, supra; Sibron v.
- Page 75 and 76:
susceptible to the interpretation t
- Page 77 and 78:
8 Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U
- Page 79 and 80:
104 S.Ct. 1652 Supreme Court of the
- Page 81 and 82:
will not be betrayed.” United Sta
- Page 83 and 84:
*126 In sum, the federal agents did
- Page 85 and 86:
and that search has not left incrim
- Page 87 and 88:
privacy in the presence or absence
- Page 89 and 90:
surrounding the use of the techniqu
- Page 91 and 92:
1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry
- Page 93 and 94:
26 See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
- Page 95 and 96:
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S
- Page 97 and 98:
how relatively warm—Kyllo was hea
- Page 99 and 100:
concurring). To be sure, the homeow
- Page 101 and 102:
homeowner would even care if anybod
- Page 103 and 104:
4 This view comports with that of a
- Page 105 and 106:
unless the dog sniff itself infring
- Page 107 and 108:
probable cause to stop the car for
- Page 109 and 110:
and, implicitly, the application of
- Page 111 and 112:
3 Kyllo was concerned with whether
- Page 113 and 114:
(500 grams and an unspecified amoun
- Page 115 and 116:
authority to allow police inside th
- Page 117 and 118:
AFFIRMED. We retain jurisdiction an
- Page 119 and 120:
that “[t]he right of the people t
- Page 121 and 122:
field” did not constitute a Fourt
- Page 123 and 124:
Government’s unrestrained power t
- Page 125 and 126:
y the government upon the privacy o
- Page 127 and 128:
own difficulties. It involves a deg
- Page 129 and 130:
search unless it is achieved by suc
- Page 131 and 132:
88 Or. L. Rev. 829 Oregon Law Revie
- Page 133 and 134:
hidden in open locations, such as f
- Page 135 and 136:
While the Place Court’s failure t
- Page 137 and 138:
location may be important in evalua
- Page 139 and 140:
III Framing the Canine Home-Sniff D
- Page 141 and 142:
seemingly making impermissible what
- Page 143 and 144:
possessions. Without minimizing the
- Page 145 and 146:
4. Even Surreptitious Canine Sniffs
- Page 147 and 148:
the sniff--to the satisfaction of a
- Page 149 and 150:
focused on the routineness of the a
- Page 151 and 152:
6 See People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 10
- Page 153 and 154:
27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examinati
- Page 155 and 156:
323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds.
- Page 157 and 158:
pre-Place decisions issued by the U
- Page 159 and 160:
97 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.
- Page 161 and 162:
121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion
- Page 163 and 164:
147 462 U.S. 696 (1983). 148 See in
- Page 165 and 166:
171 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2
- Page 167 and 168:
199 As Justice Souter explained,
- Page 169 and 170:
to school). 219 Cf. Katz & Golembie
- Page 171 and 172:
240 See Kyllo v. United States, 533
- Page 173 and 174:
263 In 2004, photographs emerged th
- Page 175 and 176:
285 Id. at 1362. The story of this
- Page 177 and 178:
306 But cf. Fitzgerald v. State, 86
- Page 179 and 180:
328 Riley, 488 U.S. at 448 (observi
- Page 181 and 182:
1 Search & Seizure § 2.3 (4th ed.)
- Page 183 and 184:
establish a right to privacy therei
- Page 185 and 186:
were locked and could only be opene
- Page 187 and 188:
The Wright rule also should not be
- Page 189 and 190:
to investigate. Noting that a metal
- Page 191 and 192:
active domestic use. It housed ten
- Page 193 and 194:
Ciraolo,191 involving aerial survei
- Page 195 and 196:
ackyard of the building was complet
- Page 197 and 198:
feet. The viewing from the helicopt
- Page 199 and 200:
cases as Ciraolo, Riley and Dow man
- Page 201 and 202:
premises were abandoned where all c
- Page 203 and 204:
22 Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863
- Page 205 and 206:
37.1 McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d
- Page 207 and 208:
(1983); State v. Eddy, 519 A.2d 113
- Page 209 and 210:
68 Dinkens v. State, 291 So.2d 122
- Page 211 and 212:
eceived no answer to knock on front
- Page 213 and 214:
870 (1987). In such a case, the fac
- Page 215 and 216:
“Second, the agents had a legal r
- Page 217 and 218:
131 United States v. Llanes, 398 F.
- Page 219 and 220:
167 The reference is to the “open
- Page 221 and 222:
however by fact lights were on insi
- Page 223 and 224:
properly crossed defendant’s land
- Page 225 and 226:
view”); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb
- Page 227 and 228:
the area within the ‘curtilage’
- Page 229 and 230:
is not to conclude that a search of
- Page 231:
265 Such analysis was challenged by